> What's your argument, that it shouldn't count because it probably didn't affect the outcome very much? No. My argument is that "being in favor of prop 8" is

> What's your argument, that it shouldn't count because it probably didn't affect the outcome very much? No. My argument is that "being in favor of prop 8" is a defendable PoV. Firing someone for political/religious views much less so. > You don't think it creates a hostile place for workers when their CEO is trying to deny them basic right? 1) No. Calling state sanctioned marriage a "basic right" is IMO a stretch in the first place, but lets put that aside: Say Eich had voted for a proposition that was actually in favor of taking basic rights, like raising voting age to 21. Would that have been a reason to cancel his career five years later? Don't think so; does not affect work at all. Its your CEO, not your drinking buddy, and even in drinking buddies someone with conflicting or opposite political views can make for more interesting discussion; I see no appeal in spending life in an echo chamber. 2) It was not a cancel campaign championed by people actually affected, but "white knighting" instead (people very publicly advocating for issues that don't affect them, frequently without even any feedback or involvement from the actual victims). Might be wrong here and dont know everything about everyone involved, but thats what it looks like to me (judging mainly from John Lilly). 3) Running a cancel campaign like this is not gonna make everyone feel safe. People are just gonna try very hard to never be in the "outgroup" instead, with all the detestable social maneuvring that brings. No thanks. Would rather face honest bigotry than fake smiles, a bunch of lies and raw contempt behind the back.